Please share your scanning method

AveryWagg said:
I too use a Nikon Coolscan V ED (LS-50) for my 35mm film, and use the Epson V600 for my 120 film - using Vuescan for both..

..Avery
Click to expand...
Hmm... there might be another similarity 🙂 That little thing behind your back, if that is you. I used to be licensed for that one too, back in Europe. Not here, different association.
 
This is an old but very valuable thread.

Please update with your current film scanning technique

if you have already posted here please explain why / how you changed your methods
or why you did not

Thanks,

Stephen
 
I scan with a Pacific Image XA Super, not the newest scanner they offer, but it works for my needs. The design and build quality of these dedicated scanners is nothing to write home about, and I don't love that part of the development process. But it gets the job done, for considerably less cost (once amortized) than having a lab do the scanning.
 
My Nikon 9000 + Vuescan scans B&W film very flat and grey. It's also a slow scanner. This seems typical issue with this software. Nikonscan was much better, but they stopped supporting that decades ago. You have to pop the scanned image into photo shop, ect to create anything usable. A gigantic PIA and sometimes my PS skills aren't good enough to salvage it. Vuescan experts probably know what to do but that's not me.

I have a more modern Epson 600 flatbed scanner with house software. It scans the opposite, too contrasty and plenty sharp. The images often look like digital captures, w/o the shadow detail. I found by accident that if I underdeveloped the B&W film, I get better results. Probably same if I overexpose -- or both. Also, sometimes get some weird digital artifacts in the image.

Neither is a perfect option, but I lean toward the flatbed as it is faster and my post processing skills are poor. For some of the better images, I'll try scanning on both machines.
 
Last edited:
Here's my scanning setup. I have changed the camera doing the scans to a Nikon D750 recently. I use the Monochrome picture control for black and white film and the Flat picture control for colour slides and negatives. The camera is set to record NEF raw files which I then process in Nikon's NX Studio.
Making the Mark Three Film Digitizer
 
I am using the default settings on scangear (Canoscan 8600f) and switch off all settings except the "correct backlight " which if needed I set it to "1".

I try to get as flat of a scan I can. Sometimes I select quite a bit of outside of the frame as scangear is trying to even out exposure and averages highlights and shadows.

I adjust each part of the scanned image individually then on GIMP.

ScanImage1230.jpg
 
Last edited:
Muggins said:
Would be interested to hear whether anyone else just uses the defaullt settings in VueScan, or whether you can get better results by adjusting them?
Click to expand...


You can see the settings I use in my film scanning tutorials. I don't generally mess with altering the curve or exposure settings because Vuescan's controls are so primitive. Its easier to adjust that stuff in Photoshop or whatever you use for editing. You will need to edit the scans; straight from the scanner they will look awful. Especially scans of B&W negatives; they'll look very flat and gray. This is normal and ok...you just edit them to increase contrast in your editing software. Scans of color slides aren't as bad because of their wider density range but will still need a little editing to look their best.

Intro To Film Scanning

B&W Negative Scanning Tutorial

Color Slide Scanning Tutorial
 
Muggins said:
Would be interested to hear whether anyone else just uses the defaullt settings in VueScan, or whether you can get better results by adjusting them?
Click to expand...

From a notional perspective...

It is good to consider scanning as a second tier of image capture following the camera. Do you always allow your camera's automation to do the whole job for every photograph? VueScan does a good, average job when left on its defaults, but just like Lightroom or any other image rendering application, the defaults are only rarely the best solution for more than a modest range of photographs.

When scanning film, whether I'm using a scanner and VueScan or a camera copy technique, I look at each image and tweak the settings if I think that a tweak will produce better results.

G
 
From a notional perspective...
Godfrey said:
It is good to consider scanning as a second tier of image capture following the camera. Do you always allow your camera's automation to do the whole job for every photograph? VueScan does a good, average job when left on its defaults, but just like Lightroom or any other image rendering application, the defaults are only rarely the best solution for more than a modest range of photographs.

When scanning film, whether I'm using a scanner and VueScan or a camera copy technique, I look at each image and tweak the settings if I think that a tweak will produce better results.

G
Click to expand...
Exactly - which is why I'm looking for inspiration to develop (bad pun, sorry)

Though I must point out there's not a lot of automation in a Kodak Six-20 Model C.
 
Chriscrawfordphoto said:
You can see the settings I use in my film scanning tutorials. I don't generally mess with altering the curve or exposure settings because Vuescan's controls are so primitive. Its easier to adjust that stuff in Photoshop or whatever you use for editing. You will need to edit the scans; straight from the scanner they will look awful. Especially scans of B&W negatives; they'll look very flat and gray. This is normal and ok...you just edit them to increase contrast in your editing software. Scans of color slides aren't as bad because of their wider density range but will still need a little editing to look their best.

Intro To Film Scanning

B&W Negative Scanning Tutorial

Color Slide Scanning
Click to expand...
Thanks, Chris, much appreciated! If the scanner settings don't make a lot of difference I'd better get deeper into Elements.
 
I use a Durst Chroma Pro slide duplicator with enlarging lenses adapted to my Fujifilm XT-2. I am able to handle 35mm half frame to 6x6 with an 80mm lens. I have had to shim it a little to manage edges on 6x6, which is about the upper size limit I can handle. I use electronic shutter (no shaking) and a 2 second delay for each shot.


Durst_setup_sm by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr
 
Looks as though scanner settings for me are now moot, as my scanner has gone tits up. I've had it over a decade, and probably get better results now photographing negs on the lightbox, so it could be worse, I guess.
 
I have not used this yet, but I am putting together this rig similar to the one Mark Wyatt has. The light is a Lupo Diaduplicator, sold in the US long ago as a Spiratone Dichro Duplilite. I am hoping it can correct some old slides that have gone off color. I just got a transformer for it and some suitable 12v lamps. The table and column are also Lupo items. The bellows and slide carrier on the column are Pentax and the lens is is a Mamiya macro Sekor 60mm f2.8. I plan on using my Pentax K-5 IIs at first, and will try to use an external monitor with the capture card cable and a remote shutter. The 35mm slide opening on the Diaduplicator lifts off and the light panel is big enough for medium format slides.

IMG_2150.jpeg
 
Muggins said:
Would be interested to hear whether anyone else just uses the defaullt settings in VueScan, or whether you can get better results by adjusting them?
Click to expand...
What I do with VueScan, when scanning originals using either my ancient Epson 2400 or Nikon LSV scanners, is to adjust the scan minimally to cover the entire histogram as evenly as possible, without blowing out highs or lows.

The resulting images, opened in LR Classic, often appear kinda flat ... but that's as it should be: it is FAR easier to increase contrast and create the pop and tonal relationships that my mind's eye had in mind when I made an exposure then it is to reduce contrast and reclaim lost detail and sharpness from an overly contrasty scan.

G
 
As I no longer shoot film but wanted to scan some old slides (quite a few hundred of them) this amounted to a one-off need which was unlikely to be replicated. So, I bought a relatively cheap Asahi Pentax bellows outfit with a negative / slide holder (not all bellows outfits come with them). It cost about $100 AUD ($60 US). it had the advantage of being cheap, plus I already had an excellent lens for it (the SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8 - for which the bellows has marked settings) and a suitable camera (a Sony NEX camera.) The camera was a slight deficit in that it's a cropped sensor giving a restricted field of view which made capturing the full slides a little difficult - though it was not an insurmountable problem as it could be "fiddled with to minimise the cropping to the borders). Once set up, the process was VERY quick - drop a slide in then "click", drop the next slide in then "click" etc. You get the picture. Of course, some post processing was needed to deal with dust, scratches etc. which counts against this (some scanning software can deal with it automatically) but for those who have kept their slides in better condition than I, this is not such an issue. BTW for lighting I bought a cheap ($30 AUD) LED panel work light from a hardware store. (Worked perfectly.) The entire kit was mounted on a tripod with the panel light on a desk behind it. A further advantage is that the whole set up is quite small and can be stored in a desk drawer when not in use.

I am happy with the results though of course when viewed from a perspective of a film shot decades past but then viewed in a digital "today" there will always be some issues with sharpness etc in many images. But this is common to any method of scanning. For those who want a cheap means of scanning this is a good one providing good quality (not perfect due to technological considerations) at a cheap price and with acceptable results.

PS it almost goes without saying - shoot RAW so you have wider options in post.
 
Last edited:
peterm1 said:
As I no longer shoot film but wanted to scan some old slides (quite a few hundred of them) this amounted to a one-off need which was unlikely to be replicated. So, I bought a relatively cheap Asahi Pentax bellows outfit with a negative / slide holder (not all bellows outfits come with them). It cost about $100 AUD ($60 US). it had the advantage of being cheap, plus I already had an excellent lens for it (the SMC Takumar 55mm f1.8 - for which the bellows has marked settings) and a suitable camera (a Sony NEX camera.) The camera was a slight deficit in that it's a cropped sensor giving a restricted field of view which made capturing the full slides a little difficult - though it was not an insurmountable problem as it could be "fiddled with to minimise the cropping to the borders). Once set up, the process was VERY quick - drop a slide in then "click", drop the next slide in then "click" etc. You get the picture. Of course, some post processing was needed to deal with dust, scratches etc. which counts against this (some scanning software can deal with it automatically) but for those who have kept their slides in better condition than I, this is not such an issue. BTW for lighting I bought a cheap ($30 AUD) LED panel work light from a hardware store. (Worked perfectly.) The entire kit was mounted on a tripod with the panel light on a desk behind it. A further advantage is that the whole set up is quite small and can be stored in a desk drawer when not in use.

I am happy with the results though of course when viewed from a perspective of a film shot decades past but then viewed in a digital "today" there will always be some issues with sharpness etc in many images. But this is common to any method of scanning. For those who want a cheap means of scanning this is a good one providing good quality (not perfect due to technological considerations) at a cheap price and with acceptable results.

PS it almost goes without saying - shoot RAW so you have wider options in post.
Click to expand...

Much good information here, many thanks for posting this.

What about contrast? Admittedly my experience with copying as you did is limited, but when copying film to film, and color slides to digital, I've found contrast in the copies was such that I had to do many (too many) adjustments in post processing.

A friend has suggested that I set up a copy system for my Fuji cameras and use one of the color negative film simulations. Which could work, or it could well open yet more endless adjustments.

Any advice will be greatly appreciated as I'm staring at a bit color slide and B&W negative copying project later this year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom